United States v. Oriakhi , 53 F. App'x 296 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FELIX ORIAKHI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
90-72, CA-02-2602-PJM)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Felix Oriakhi, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion and his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of
appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district
court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to
claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds,
a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can
demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)
(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.
denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).
We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons
stated by the district court that Oriakhi has not made the
requisite showing. See United States v. Oriakhi, Nos. CR-90-72;
CA-02-2602-PJM (D. Md. filed Aug. 16, 2002; entered Aug. 19, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
2
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3